Chapter 7 A typology of honorific uses of clusivity Michael Cysouw Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology In many languages, pronouns are used with special meanings in honorific contexts. The most widespread phenomenon cross-linguistically is the usage of a plural pronoun instead of a singular to mark respect. In this chapter, I will investigate the possibility of using clusivity in honorific contexts. This is a rare phenomenon, but a thorough investigation has resulted in a reasonably diverse set of examples, taken from languages all over the world. It turns out that there are many different honorific contexts in which an inclusive or exclusive pronoun can be used. The most commonly attested variant is the usage of an inclusive pronoun with a po- lite connotation, indicating social distance. Keywords: politeness, respect, syncretism, clusivity 1. Introduction In his study of the cross-linguistic variation of honorific reference, Head (1978: 178) claims that inclusive reference, when used honorifically, indicates less social dis- tance. However, he claims this on the basis of only two cases. In this chapter, a sur- vey will be presented of a large set of languages, in which an inclusive or exclusive marker is used in an honorific sense. It turns out that Head’s claim is not accurate. In contrast, it appears that inclusive marking is in many cases a sign of greater so- cial distance, although the variability of the possible honorific usages is larger than might have been expected. There are also cases in which an inclusive is used in an impolite fashion or cases in which an exclusive is used in a polite fashion. Specifically, I will discuss the usage of inclusives with polite second person refer- ence in Section 2. In Section 3, I will present examples of inclusives with humble first person reference. In Section 4, the slightly different usage of inclusives with bonding first person reference will be discussed. All these usages of inclusives can be characterised as having a polite connotation. In contrast, I will present some ex- amples of inclusives with impolite first person reference in Section 5. Then there are also some languages in which the exclusive functions as a polite first person, as dis- cussed in Section 6. Finally, all examples discussed are summarised and some gen- eralisations are proposed in Section 7. Although all these usages are attested, they are not all attested equally frequently. However, inferences from frequency are only to be taken with great caution. The data that form the basis for this chapter are inherently skewed for various reasons. UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1st proofs 224 Michael Cysouw First, the present compilation of cases is the result of rather ad-hoc collecting. I started from some cases, which I encountered during a typological investigation of person marking (Cysouw 2003). Investigating the linguistic areas and genetic fam- ilies of those cases has subsequently enlarged this set. The present collection is large and varied enough to pass as a cross-linguistic sample, yet the procedure that lead to this sample is not one of controlled sampling (cf. Rijkhoff and Bakker 1998). Sec- ond, it is rather difficult to find information on honorific usage in reference gram- mars and other published works on ‘exotic’ languages. Except for a few studies that are explicitly devoted to the subject of honorific reference, I had to work on a ba- sis of short indications about possible honorific usages of clusivity markers as they were made in grammars and other descriptive works. Often no more than a com- ment in passing is given, saying for example only that the inclusive is used for hon- orific address. When and under which circumstances such honorific address is used remains often enigmatic from the source. Also, when a source does not give any information on possible honorific usages of a clusivity marker, this should by no means be regarded as absence of such usage. The social aspects of language use are often disregarded in language description. I wil use the politeness framework of Brown and Levinson (1987) to analyse the linguistic variation attested. Specifically, the notions of positive and negative po- liteness are of central importance. Positive politeness “anoints the face of the ad- dressee by indicating that in some respects, [the speaker] wants [the addressee’s] wants” (Brown and Levinson 1987:70). In other words, being positively polite roughly amounts to share the addressee’s attitudes. Negative politeness “consists in assurances that the speaker recognizes and respects the addressee’s . wants and will not . interfere with the addressee’s freedom of action” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 70). In other words, being negatively polite roughly amounts to leave the ad- dressee alone as much as possible. I will use these two purportedly universal forces in human interaction to bring order to the various kinds of honorific usage of clu- sivity. The main body of this chapter consists of a large collection of cases that show honorific use of clusivity.1 In the final section, I will propose some generalisations over the present collection of cases. With this survey, I hope to stimulate new de- scriptions of honorific reference in human language ‑ possibly with the result that the present generalisations become null and void. If so, then I will consider my mis- sion complete. 2. Inclusive as a polite second person (negative politeness) In the Western Malayo-Polynesian languages of central and southern Sulawesi (In- donesia), the use of the inclusive as a polite second person is particularly prom- inent. The pronominal elements themselves differ widely between the individual languages, which indicates that the shared usage of the inclusive as honorific origin- UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1st proofs A typology of honorific uses of clusivity 225 ated after the languages had differentiated from the proto-language. It is probably a contact-induced loan translation that has spread throughout the region. In Muna, the inclusive pronoun intaida is used for second person honorific reference (van den Berg 1989: 81). The inflectional subject markers show a difference between do- for inclusive and to- for second person honorific. However “the do- forms can also be used for the second person singular, in which case they have a rather formal con- notation. Their use does not imply politeness but rather aloofness; the form is espe- cially suitable for addressing foreigners” (van den Berg 1989: 51). In Konjo, the pro- nominal paradigm has been strongly reduced, leaving only four different pronouns: a first person nakke, a second person kau, a polite second person gitte and a third person ia. The first person has an exclusive connotation. Relating to the present topic, the polite second person can be used with an inclusive meaning: “the Konjo pronominal system differentiates only person, not number or gender. The use of first person reflects the fact that the speaker excludes the hearer, while the use of the second person honorific reflects his inclusion” (Friberg 1996: 138, fn. 2). These pro- nouns are not very frequently used; the “free form pronouns occur mainly for em- phasis in Konjo. The person-marker clitics serve to clarify what the semantic sub- ject (and object) of the verb are” (Friberg 1996: 138). These person-marking clitics, however, show exactly the same honorific usage as the free pronouns. Further, the inclusive pronoun is used for polite second person reference in the Sulawesi lan- guages Bajau (Verheijen 1986: 15, 19), Wolio (Anceaux and Grimes 1995: 577) and in Sa’dan (mentioned by Blust 1977: 11). Additional evidence for this usage can be found in some languages in central and southern Sulawesi, in which the inclusive/exclusive opposition is vanishing or has already disappeared. The exclusive pronoun is disappearing and the formerly inclu- sive pronoun is used both for all first person plural reference and for polite second person reference. For example, in Makassarese, the pronoun (i)katte is explained in the dictionary of Cense (1979: 312–13) as being basically a first person plural in- clusive, though nowadays often used instead of the vanishing exclusive pronoun (i)kambe. As a second referential possibility, (i)katte can also be used as a polite sec- ond person (Matthes 1858: 69–70). In Bugis, the pronoun (id)ikәŋ is a general first person plural, although it can have an exclusive connotation. Another first person plural pronoun, idi’, without exclusive connotation, can be used as a second person honorific (Sirk 1979: 107–8; Matthes 1875: 197–8): ikәŋ and idikkәŋ in general express the notion of plurality (= ‘we’). The pronoun idi’, for the first person, means, likewise, ‘we’, but it is also used as an honorific form, for the second person (= ‘you’). The notions of inclusive/exclusive are practically unexpressed in the language of the traditional literature of Bugis. Among the pro- nouns of the first person, ikәŋ, idikkәŋ and ia’ [but not idi’, MC] can have an exclu- sive value. (Sirk 1979: 107–8, my translation)2 Likewise in Banggai, the pronoun ikita is used for the first person plural. There is no mention of an inclusive–exclusive distinction in the grammar of van den Bergh UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1st proofs 226 Michael Cysouw (1953: 44), although historically this pronoun is clearly related to the inclusive pro- noun *(k)ita from proto-Austronesian. In Banggai, this pronoun is also used for po- lite second person reference. Van den Bergh claims that this honorific function is a loan translation from Bugis. He also recorded a native explanation for this use: As an explanation why the first person plural was used as a honorific plural, we were told thus: ‘if we address a person higher in rank with ikita and we acciden- tally say something unpleasant, then he cannot become angry that easily, because we have also included ourselves in the unpleasantness.